'Material Fact' For Voidable Marriage Under HMA Must Be A Fact If Disclosed Will Result In Party Not Consenting To Marriage: Allahabad HC

In the present case, the Court held that the material fact was related to the previous marital status, which was never disclosed to the husband; therefore, the consent of the husband for marriage with the wife was obtained by fraud and deceipt, attracting Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “Thus, under the Hindu Law, not every misrepresentation or concealment of a fact shall amount to “fraud” as envisaged under Section 12(1)(c) for annulment of a marriage. The fraud must be material as to the nature of ceremony or to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent and thus, at this point it is pertinent to consider what would tantamount to a material fact. The meaning of “material fact” or “circumstance concerning the respondent” is difficult to define with certainty. However, it would be reasonable to say that fact or circumstance which is of such a nature that it would be material or relevant to the consent for marriage would be a material fact or circumstance in terms of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, 1955. A fact, which if disclosed, would result in either of the parties not consenting to the marriage, would be a material fact. Such a material fact must be in respect of the person or the character of the person.”

Advocate U.S. Sahai appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Madan Gopal Misra appeared for the Respondent.

An appeal was filed by the Appellant-wife assailing a judgment/decree passed by the Family Court in a suit filed by the Husband-Respondent under Section 12 of the Act, i.e. voidable marriage. The Family Court had allowed the suit and declared the marriage between the parties as void and ineffective.

The brief facts of the case were that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in 1995, and after two days, a man came to the house of the Husband and told him and his family that Appellant-wife had married him in 1990. He also told them that the appellant had developed an illicit relationship with another man and, as such, she was not ready to come back to him. Consequently, his marriage with the appellant was dissolved in accordance with the mutual understanding.

The case of the husband was that the wife had committed fraud on him by concealing the factum of her earlier marriage and alleged divorce from him, which was a material fact/circumstance regarding her marital status, therefore, he was entitled to relief as prayed on the ground of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act.

The Court said that from the statements of the witnesses, two facts were clear, i.e. firstly, the factum of a previous marriage of the Wife was not in the knowledge of the Husband prior to his marriage, nor anyone informed him or his family members in this regard; secondly, the factum of the previous marriage of the appellant for the first time came to the notice of the respondent when the previous husband of Wife came to the house of the Husband.

Further, the Court also noted that the wife had failed to prove her assertion that the factum of the previous marriage was disclosed to the husband and his family members, and only thereafter the marriage was solemnized.

The Court held, “In the facts of the present case, it is decipherable that the factum of previous marriage of the appellant with…was a material fact concerning the wife (respondent) relating to her marital status, which was never disclosed to the husband (plaintiff), as such, the consent of the respondent for marriage with the appellant was obtained by fraud and deceipt thereby attracting Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, 1955, therefore, he is entitled to a declaration as granted by the Family Court. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.”

Another aspect which was dealt with by the Court was regarding any custom in the wife’s caste or locality for dissolution of marriage by a written agreement. The Court said, “No evidence has been led by her in this regard. She admits to her first marriage. There is no decree of divorce by any Court pertaining to her first marriage. If this reasoning is taken further, then, it will lead to the conclusion that the alleged second marriage apart from being violative of Section 12 (1) (c), is also a nullity during subsistence of the first marriage in view of Section 5 (i) of the Act, 1955, but we do not proceed on this line as the suit was under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 and not Section 11.”

Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned judgment and decree and dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:61602-DB)

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate U.S. Sahai

Respondent: Advocate Madan Gopal Misra

Click here to read/download the Order